5.  The applicants live in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. Their names and dates of birth are indicated in the appended table.
6.  In 1990, since cars were not available in free trade, the applicants chose to obtain State special-purpose promissory notes which would entitle them to Russian-made cars. Mrs Valentina Plotnikova should have received a car in 1992 and the other applicants in 1993-1995. The applicants paid the car's full value but never received the cars.
 7.  In 1998 Mrs V. Plotnikova and in 2002 Mrs Gladkova and I. Plotnikova received partial compensation of a car's monetary value in accordance with the State Programme for the redemption of the State internal debt (see paragraphs 20-22 below).
8.  All applicants brought court actions against the authorities, seeking to recover the full monetary value of the State promissory notes for purchasing of Russian-made cars.
9.  On the dates listed in the Appendix the domestic courts found, in respect of each applicant, with reference to the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995 as amended on 2 June 2000 (see paragraph 19 below) that the State could not be absolved from an obligation to compensate them the full value of the cars. In particular, in the case of Mrs Sizintseva the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) held as follows:
“In accordance with the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1 June 1995 the State commodity bonds, including the special-purpose settlement orders, were to be recognised as the State internal debt. [...]
The State has not complied with its obligation to provide [the applicant] with a car as specified in a special-purpose settlement order.
Article 55 of the Constitution [...] stipulates that in the Russian Federation no laws shall be adopted cancelling or derogating human rights and freedoms.
Therefore, the Federal law of 2 June 2000 amending the [State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995] cannot be regarded as well-founded and lawful insofar as it provides for the payment of the compensation in the amount equalling to a part of the car's value specified in the special-purpose settlement order.
These [amendments] do not comply with the constitutional principles [cited above]”
The court accordingly refused to take account of the amendments of 2 June 2000 and chose to apply the price scale for the cars to be purchased under the settlement orders as in force on the date of delivery of the judgment. Similarly, in the case of Mr Titov the Mirninskiy Town Court held on 16 October 2001 that the amendments introduced by the Federal Law of 2 June 2000 “constituted an interference with the citizen's rights to receive a car” and “contradicted to Article 55 of the Constitution”. When determining the claim by Mrs Gladkova, the first instance court reached a similar conclusion and ruled that the amendments in question were adopted “in violation of [...] the Constitution, the Civil Code and the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995”. In the case of Irina Plotnikova the Neryungri Town Court hold that the ex parte change of the conditions of redemption by the Government was to the detriment of the applicant's interests and therefore was unlawful.
10.  The domestic courts accordingly awarded the applicants compensation in the amounts specified below payable by the State authorities, these sums representing the full monetary value of the cars on the date of the delivery of the judgments. In cases of Mrs Gladkova, Valentina Plotnikova and Irina Plotnikova the domestic courts deducted from the full value of the car the amount of the compensation these applicants had received in 1998-2002. On the dates specified in the Appendix the judgments became final.
12.  On the dates cited in the appended table the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, upon an application from the Ministry of Finance and by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the final judgments in the applicants' favour, re-examined the cases, reduced the amount of the compensation to be paid in case of Mrs Valentina Plotnikova to 28,009 Russian roubles (RUB) and dismissed in full the actions of the remaining applicants. In each case the Presidium found that the lower courts had misapplied the applicable domestic law. In particular, in every case except for the case of Valentina Plotnikova, the Presidium found that the lower courts had neglected to take into account the provisions of the amended State Commodity Bonds' Act and the Government's Resolution no. 1006. In the case of Mrs Sizintseva the Presidium formulated the conclusion as regards the quashing as follows:
“The [appeal instance] had not taken into account the provisions of [the amendments introduced by the Federal Law of 2 June 2000], in force at the material time. A decision by the [appeal instance] based on incorrect application of the material law shall be quashed”
14.   Mrs Gladkova submitted that she had not been timeously notified of the session of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) and therefore could not attend it.
15.  According to the Government, RUB 28,009 awarded to Mrs Valentina Plotnikova by the supervisory instance judgment of 26 November 2006 (see Appendix below), has not been paid to her to date.